Criminalizing Sociability through Anti-social Behaviour Legislation: Dispersal Powers, Young People and the Police
| Author | Adam Crawford |
| Published date | 01 April 2009 |
| Date | 01 April 2009 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1473225408101429 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
A R T I C L E
Copyright © 2009 The National Association for Youth Justice
Published by SAGE Publications
(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC)
www.sagepublications.com
ISSN 1473–2254, Vol 9(1): 5–26
DOI: 10.1177/1473225408101429
Criminalizing Sociability through Anti-social
Behaviour Legislation: Dispersal Powers,
Young People and the Police
Adam Crawford
Correspondence: Professor Adam Crawford, School of Law, 20 Lyddon Terrace,
University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. Email: a.crawford@leeds.ac.uk
Abstract
This article explores the impact of dispersal powers introduced as part of the British govern-
ment’s drive to tackle anti-social behaviour. It focuses especially on the experiences and views
of young people affected by dispersal orders. It highlights the importance of experiences of
respect and procedural justice for the manner in which they respond to directions to disperse.
It considers the ways in which dispersal powers can increase police–youth antagonism; bring
young people to police attention on the basis of the company they keep; render young people
more vulnerable; and reinforce a perception of young people as a risk to others rather than as
at risk themselves. It refl ects on broader conceptions of youth and public space apparent within
the anti-social behaviour agenda.
Keywords: anti-social behaviour, dispersal orders, exclusion from public places, police–youth
relations, respect
In the UK in recent years, anti-social behaviour has become a major political focal point and
policy concern. With its genesis in the management of public housing, we have witnessed
the proliferation of a range of programmes and interventions formulated under the rubric of
‘tackling anti-social behaviour’ that have infused diverse areas of social life. Policy domains as
extensive as education, parenting, youth services, city centre management, environmental plan-
ning, social housing and traditional policing increasingly can be said to be governed through a
preoccupation with ‘anti-social behaviour’.
As commentators have noted the capacious defi nition of ‘anti-social behaviour’ extends to
a wide range of activities, misdemeanours, incivilities and (sometimes quite serious) crimes
(Ashworth, 2004; Millie et al., 2005). In legislation it is defi ned as behaviour that ‘causes or
is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress’ to others. This broad characterisation is both
subjective and context-specifi c as it rests on the perceptions of others. It is offi cially recognized
that people’s understanding of what constitutes anti-social behaviour is ‘determined by a series
of factors including context, location, community tolerance and quality of life expectations…
what may be considered anti-social behaviour to one person can be seen as acceptable behaviour
6
Youth Justice 9(1)
to another’ (Home Offi ce, 2004: 3). Despite its generic defi nition, however, in essence the anti-
social behaviour programme and the subsequent ‘Respect’ agenda are concerned with the ques-
tion of governing ‘troublesome youth’ (Squires and Stephen, 2005). As a distinct policy fi eld
that intentionally transcends traditional distinctions between crime and incivilities, blurs civil
and criminal processes, and connects inter-disciplinary approaches, anti-social behaviour inter-
ventions dramatically refi gure pathways into, through, and potentially away from, youth justice.
Understanding the impact of the new technologies of control and the values that inform them,
therefore, is central to an appreciation of the complex and contradictory dynamics that infuse
contemporary youth justice and the unfolding shape of youth governance (Muncie, 2006).
Echoing Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) ‘broken windows’ thesis the meaning of acts, behaviours
or omissions derives less from what they are than from what their consequences are or might be,
largely due to the ways in which they are interpreted by others. The shift in focus no longer entails
a concern to know, or account for, past or present incidences, but rather to disrupt, re-order and
steer possible futures. The preoccupation with governing anti-social behaviour has foregrounded
a concern with (adult) perceptions of insecurity as an important object of policy in its own right
and a focus on early and pre-emptive intervention, to forestall the potential escalation of bad
behaviour at both an individual and community level. Public reassurance has become a key aim
of local services, demanding that they demonstrate visible efforts to address public anxieties
(Crawford, 2007). The Respect Handbook is clear in its guidance to practitioners: ‘To win public
confi dence and reduce perceptions of anti-social behaviour people need to see action being
taken…. Communicating action taken is as important as taking action’ (Home Offi ce, 2007a:
16–17). As such, much of the impetus behind anti-social behaviour-related initiatives derives
from the symbolic messages and communicative properties they express, rather than from their
instrumental capacity to regulate behaviour.
Stoked by sensationalist media representations of ‘youth gangs’ and ‘feral children’ terrorizing
Britain’s streets and some high profi le group-related murders, Time Magazine caught the mood
with its cover story in April 2008: ‘Unhappy, Unloved, and Out of Control – An Epidemic
of Violence, Crime and Drunkenness has made Britain Scared of its Young’ (Mayer, 2008).
In this context, therefore, it is perhaps not so surprising that in the politics of behaviour the
age-old phenomenon of young people congregating in public places has been spotlighted as a
key battleground. This has been encouraged by evidence from the British Crime Survey (BCS),
that the percentage of people who identify youths hanging about in the street in their locality
as ‘a big problem’ has grown by nearly two-thirds from 20 per cent in 1992 to 33 per cent in
2006/7 (Nicholas et al., 2007). Poignantly, the BCS collects data only from those aged 16 and
over. Consequently, it signifi cantly ignores young people’s experiences and views of crime and
anti-social behaviour. Despite this, it has become the major barometer for understanding public
perceptions of crime and insecurity, directly informing both policy formation and organizational
performance measurement.1 Being seen to be doing something tangible about public anxieties
has become too easily confl ated with policing gatherings of groups of young people.2 The
unsuccessful experience of child curfew orders, introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act
1998 (ss. 14–15 and extended by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001), but never used
in England and Wales, prompted the introduction of new dispersal powers, fi rst outlined in
the Respect and Responsibility White Paper that informed the 2003 Anti-social Behaviour Act
(Home Offi ce, 2003: 53).
Crawford – Criminalizing Sociability through Anti-social Behaviour Legislation
7
Unsurprisingly, much of the critical commentary and public debate about the anti-social
behaviour agenda has centred on the ASBO, just under half of which are imposed on juveniles
in England and Wales.3 One clear fi nding from the research data thus far has been to expose the
variability between localities and regions (and within them between differing organizations) in
the meaning and measurement of anti-social behaviour as well as the use of diverse interventions
(Burney, 2005). Moreover, differences in application largely refl ect local preferences and the
familiarity of those in authority with different measures, rather than a direct correspondence
with the particular types of behavioural problems in given localities or an objective assessment of
what works with different types of perpetrators (NAO, 2006; Solanki et al., 2006). The absence
of research across the range of new powers introduced by the government as part of its strategy to
tackle anti-social behaviour was roundly condemned by the House of Commons Committee of
Public Accounts (2007: 12).
This article draws on the fi rst major empirical study of the use and impact of dispersal powers
in the UK to explore their practical implications for youth–police relations and the regulation
of public spaces, as well as the messages they convey about the status of young people in society
and the way they are regarded by adults. It presents evidence of young people’s experiences and
interpretations of dispersal powers and their implementation drawn from a number of case
study sites.
Dispersal Powers
Part 4 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 (ss30–36) provides police in England and Wales with
powers to disperse groups of two or more people from designated areas where there is believed
to be signifi cant and persistent anti-social behaviour and a problem with groups causing intimi-
dation. Analogous (although slightly less extensive) powers are available in Scotland under the
Anti-social Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004.4 The powers are exceptional in that they are both
time-limited and geographically-bounded to specifi c areas that have been authorized for their use.
Within a designated zone a police constable or community support offi cer (CSO) may
disperse groups of two or more where their presence or behaviour has resulted, or is likely to
result, in a member of the public being harassed, intimidated, alarmed or distressed. The offi cer
may give one or more of the following directions:
(i) require people in the group to disperse either...
To continue reading
Request your trial